A U.S. Trident II ballistic missile launches from a submerged submarine. A task force has called for the United States to build new types of nuclear warheads to replace earlier designs, such as those deployed on the Trident (DOD Photo). Task Force Urges U.S. to Adopt New Nuclear Weapons “Family” By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The United States should immediately begin efforts to produce a new “family” of nuclear weapons to replace the current U.S. arsenal, according to an Energy Department-commissioned task force report released Wednesday (see GSN, July 1). Two major aims, it says, are to develop safer, more reliable nuclear warheads than the existing Cold War-designed models, and to revamp the U.S. nuclear weapons complex to make it more “robust” and “responsive” — meaning to improve the U.S. ability to more quickly produce new or upgraded nuclear weapons...Full Story

Parties Split in House Over U.S. Security Reorganization By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Less than 24 hours after U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced a far-reaching overhaul of his young department, congressional Democrats yesterday criticized the plan for what they called an excessive focus on bureaucracy and a failure to address some major concerns, while Republicans praised the proposed changes in glowing terms (see GSN, July 13)...Full Story

Chinese Officer Threatens U.S. With Nukes China would use nuclear weapons against the United States if Washington were to intervene militarily in Beijing’s dispute with Taiwan, a top Chinese military official said yesterday (see GSN, June 24)...Full Story

	Friday, July 15, 2005

Parties Split in House Over U.S. Security Reorganization By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Less than 24 hours after U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced a far-reaching overhaul of his young department, congressional Democrats yesterday criticized the plan for what they called an excessive focus on bureaucracy and a failure to address some major concerns, while Republicans praised the proposed changes in glowing terms (see GSN, July 13). “The department’s broken. Some of us have been waiting for quite a long time for the repairman to show up and fix the agency,” said the House of Representatives Homeland Security Committee’s top Democrat, Bennie Thompson (Miss.), as the panel opened the first Capitol Hill hearing on the restructuring. The restructuring plan, however, “does not address the department’s most serious defects,” Thompson said. Committee Chairman Christopher Cox (R-Calif.) lauded nearly all the plan’s major facets, notably Chertoff’s announcement that Homeland Security would concentrate on what the chairman called the “most consequential kinds of terrorism that America may face.” Chertoff said in presenting his plan yesterday that Homeland Security’s preparedness efforts would focus “first and most relentlessly on addressing threats that pose catastrophic consequences,” such as weapons of mass destruction, and place only secondary priority on threats of high likelihood and areas of great vulnerability. That hierarchy of priorities is “absolutely right,” Cox said today. The plan generally addresses the priorities of congressional Republicans for reforming Homeland Security, the chairman added. “I have no question that you have been listening carefully,” he told Chertoff. The overhaul is meant to increase the risk basis for Homeland Security priority-setting and the department’s sense of “urgency” about its mission, as well as to improve the “stewardship” of financial and human resources and to draw more fully on the “network” of governmental and private-sector systems that feed into the department’s work, Chertoff said Wednesday. He announced a set of “imperatives” for the “near term” that included improving catastrophe preparedness, border security, immigration policy, transportation security and information sharing with other government agencies and with business, as well as a structural reorganization of the department. Chertoff highlighted specific proposals such as the creation of a “preparedness baseline” with which to measure and compare efforts around the country, an infusion of personnel and funds for border security and accelerated development of WMD sensors for public transit systems. As part of the departmental reorganization, he said he planned to create several new positions, including an overall head of departmental policy, a chief intelligence officer, a head of operations and, within a new preparedness directorate, a chief medical officer and a head of cybersecurity and telecommunications security. At yesterday’s hearing, Thompson complained that Democrats were consulted less than 24 hours before yesterday’s release of the plan and presented highlights from a report they released today detailing their reactions to the proposals. Party leaders support some measures in the plan, Thompson said, naming the cybersecurity post, the strengthening of biological defense through creation of the chief medical officer position, progress Chertoff announced on plans to fingerprint visitors to the United States and the repeal of a requirement that air passengers using Reagan National Airport here remain seated for 30 minutes after taking off from the airport or before arriving there. Thompson said the plan is “vague” on other counts, though. He expressed particular concern that the department has failed so far to produce a national transportation security plan that was due April 1. Chertoff refused to set a precise timeline for development of the transportation security plan. Replied Thompson, “Waiting for another event to happen to take best learned practices from it is probably not the way to go.” Democrat Jane Harman (Calif.) took Chertoff to task for what she characterized as a focus on bureaucratic reform at the expense of substance. “Your primary audience is not government junkies or graduate students but the general public,” Harman said. She called for reforming the department’s color-coded terrorist threat warning system, the delivery of a national threat and vulnerability assessment mandated under the 2002 law that created the department and a greater focus on establishing a national system of interoperable communications for use by emergency responders in catastrophes. “I hope I’m representing the anxious public” in asking such questions, Harman said. The secretary provided no specifics on the three points but said each was a priority for the department. Chertoff also thanked Congress for its general support of his decision to increase the centralized, risk-based aspect of spending and priority-setting at Homeland Security, rather than continuing with a system that has long been criticized as haphazard. “We owe the American people putting a set of priorities on the table that will address those issues of greatest concern,” he said. Back to top

Pentagon Officials Admits U.S. Error in “Overemphasizing” Iraq’s WMD Capabilities Before War A top U.S. Defense Department official has conceded that the Bush administration oversold Saddam Hussein’s WMD capabilities in justifying the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, June 29). “I don't think there is any question that we as an administration, instead of giving proper emphasis to all major elements of the rationale for war, overemphasized the WMD aspect,” said Douglas Feith, a high-ranking policy adviser to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. “Our intelligence community made, apparently, an error, as to the stockpiles” of weapons in Iraq, Feith said. “Anything we said at all about stockpiles was overemphasis, given that we didn't find them.” Still, Feith defended the decision to invade Iraq but, “It would have been better had we done a better job of communicating in all of its breadth the strategic rationale for the war.” This rationale included the potential for Iraq to resume WMD development, according to AP. Feith has been bothered by critics who have said the absence of weapons of mass destruction should negate any other reason for war. He said Iraq provided “rhetorical and financial support” for terrorists and had a record of hostility in the Middle East. “One could fault the administration on the presentation of the rationale, but that is different from saying the rationale was actually extremely narrow and invalidated by the disclosure of the error” on weapons of mass destruction, Feith said (Robert Burns, Associated Press/Baltimore Sun, July 15) Back to top

Task Force Urges U.S. to Adopt New Nuclear Weapons “Family” By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The United States should immediately begin efforts to produce a new “family” of nuclear weapons to replace the current U.S. arsenal, according to an Energy Department-commissioned task force report released Wednesday (see GSN, July 1). Two major aims, it says, are to develop safer, more reliable nuclear warheads than the existing Cold War-designed models, and to revamp the U.S. nuclear weapons complex to make it more “robust” and “responsive” — meaning to improve the U.S. ability to more quickly produce new or upgraded nuclear weapons. The task force has in mind beginning design work on the so-called Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program, which was created by Congress last year, having been proposed by a key subcommittee chairman, Representative Dave Hobson (R-Ohio). “To develop the sustainable stockpile of the future, the Task Force recommends the immediate initiation of the modernization of the stockpile through the design of the RRW. This should lead to a family of modern nuclear weapons,” the report says. The report also recommends building a new, centralized nuclear weapons production facility for producing and dismantling all nuclear weapons. The department’s National Nuclear Security Administration should begin “immediately … site selection processes for building a modern set of production facilities with 21st century cutting-edge nuclear component production, manufacturing, and assembly technologies, all at one location,” it says. The report’s plan would also eliminate some redundancies between the three nuclear weapons laboratories: Los Alamos National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. For and Against “This represents a sort of fantasy vision of the nuclear weapons complex. … This idea of a replacement, consolidated nuclear weapons production complex has been around for about 20 years,” said Natural Resources Defense Council analyst Christopher Paine. Paine and another critic did praise the report for problems it identifies with the current nuclear weapons complex, such as redundancies at the labs. Still, he argued that the report’s recommendations could have negative consequences for nonproliferation.  “I wonder what kind of bubble these people live in that they think they can propose a brand new nuclear weapons production complex costing billions, dedicated to nuclear weapons and components production, while they are telling Iran that Iran can’t have an enrichment facility for peaceful purposes,” he said. No money for task force’s recommendations exists in bills currently before Congress. Funding only to study that Reliable Replacement Warhead concept is included in several major bills moving through Congress. Hobson said he would seek to add legislation “to begin this transition” during a closed House-Senate conference over the fiscal 2006 Energy and Water Appropriations bill. The plan involves reducing resources at the national laboratories, and Hobson might run into trouble with his Senate counterpart, Senator Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), who after reviewing the report said in a statement yesterday, “While there is always room for improvement, I believe our labs are doing good work and I do not think we should rush into any quick fixes.” Domenici has included report language attached to the Senate-passed version of the Energy Department funding bill that would prohibit using funds in the bill to implement the recommendations. The six-member Nuclear Weapons Complex Infrastructure Task Force, which advises the energy secretary, said its recommendations would save money in the long run. It gives no cost estimate however. Implementing the Bush Administration’s Vision Hobson, who requested the underlying review during a hearing last year, praised it in a statement yesterday. “The task force concludes that the current stockpile and supporting weapons complex is neither technically credible nor financially sustainable. I agree 100 percent,” he said. “We need fewer, more modern weapons that can be certified without underground nuclear testing and will be cheaper to produce, easier to maintain, and safer to dismantle. To support the transition to that new stockpile, we will need a more modern, capable, and efficient design and production complex,” he said. The Bush administration favors the plan and has advocated its general aims. National Nuclear Security Administration chief Linton Brooks in congressional testimony in April said the then-forthcoming task force report would detail what he called the administration’s “emerging vision” for remaking the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal and complex.   Brooks described the nuclear arsenal the administration would like “if we were starting to build the stockpile from scratch today (see GSN, April 5). Arms Control Concern The task force’s report says it responds to a need expressed by the Bush administration in its 2001 Nuclear Posture Review to be able by 2012 to design and produce new nuclear weapons types more quickly, either to provide new capabilities or to address deficiencies in existing weapons. The National Nuclear Security Administration, the report says, has directed the complex be able to resolve a stockpile concern in 12 months, modify a weapon to meet a new requirement in 18 months, develop a new weapon for a new requirement in three years, achieve full production in four years, and be ready to test in 18 months. The report says the nation’s three nuclear weapons design laboratories already have state-of-the-art design and testing capabilities and that the nuclear weapons staffing level at the design laboratories “are comparable if not greater than that attained at the design laboratories during the peak period of activity in the mid-1980s.” It also says, though, that the complex is rapidly losing nuclear design experts with live testing experience — the United States has maintained a moratorium on testing since the early 1990s — and that nuclear weapons production equipment is outdated. A more responsive infrastructure, the report adds, would enable the military to keep smaller numbers of nuclear weapons in the arsenal. Nongovernmental critics say the plan reflects a Bush administration ambition to avoid deep reductions in U.S. nuclear weapons and to increase their usefulness. That strategy, they say, would undermine international nonproliferation efforts. “The authors of this report are just imagining things if they think that this proposal is going to fly around the world, is going to make everybody feel more secure because old obsolete weapons are going to be dismantled so that new weapons can be built to attack countries,” said Greg Mello, executive director of the Los Alamos Study Group. The report says in order to “to demonstrate that the U.S. is committed to arms reduction,” the existing Pantex nuclear weapons assembly and disassembly site should proceed with “aggressive dismantlement of the Cold War stockpile, while the [nuclear weapons] complex begins replacing the Cold War stockpile with the sustainable stockpile of the future.” Back to top       Chinese Officer Threatens U.S. With Nukes China would use nuclear weapons against the United States if Washington were to intervene militarily in Beijing’s dispute with Taiwan, a top Chinese military official said yesterday (see GSN, June 24). “If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China’s territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons,” said General Zhu Chenghu. “We … will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all of the cities east of Xian. Of course the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds … of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese,” said Zhu. He added, however, that his views did not represent official Chinese policy. Some U.S.-based China experts also said Zhu’s views likely did not represent mainstream attitudes within the leadership of the Chinese army. “He is running way beyond his brief on what China might do in relation to the U.S. if push comes to shove,” said one expert. “Nobody who is cleared for information on Chinese war scenarios is going to talk like this.” Since its first nuclear weapons test in 1964, official Chinese policy has called for no first use of nuclear weapons, according to the Times (Harney/Sevastopulo, Financial Times, July 15). Back to top       EU Envoys Doubt North Korea Has Uranium Program Members of a delegation of European Union lawmakers who completed a visit to North Korea yesterday said they had doubts about U.S. allegations that Pyongyang is actively pursuing uranium enrichment activities in addition to the plutonium-based facilities it has acknowledged operating, Agence France-Presse reported today (see GSN, July 14). British lawmaker Glyn Ford said that “essentially, indications seem to be that North Korea has blueprints for a HEU program … but in order to have a serious HEU program, you are talking about 3,000 gas centrifuges, and you need power supply of quality and quantity, and we have no evidence that they have it.” North Korean leaders also told the EU officials they did not want Japan to attend the next round of six-party talks on Pyongyang’s nuclear program, scheduled for later this month. “They don’t want Japan in the talks at all,” said the leader of the nine-member delegation, Ursula Stenzel of Austria. “They said that’s no use” (Agence France-Presse/ChannelNewsAsia.com, July 15). North Korea wants to address the issue of the alleged presence of U.S. nuclear weapons in South Korea and Japan during the talks, Yonhap reported today. Pyongyang “wants the denuclearization issue in a broader context, which means not only them, but nuclear presence in … South Korea because they are under a nuclear umbrella from the United States,” Stenzel quoted North Korean officials as saying. Official U.S. policy is to neither confirm nor deny the presence of its nuclear weapons in other countries, Kyodo reported. Seoul, however, has maintained that it has no atomic bombs on its territory (Kyodo, July 15). Demands for a stringent inspections regime must be part of negotiations with North Korea at the outset, a nuclear expert told Congress yesterday. “Verification must be integrated right from the beginning in the negotiation process,” said David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security. “Robust verification needs to start immediately when the agreement is implemented,” Albright said, adding that a lack of intrusive verification was a primary reason for the collapse of the 1994 Agreed Framework, in which North Korea promised the Clinton administration an end to its nuclear program in exchange for two light-water nuclear energy reactors (Reuters, July 14). The Bush administration, meanwhile, is sponsoring a conference on North Korean human rights abuses Tuesday, just one week before the next round of multilateral talks is scheduled to begin, USA Today reported. Pyongyang “might raise hell” about the event, possibly even damaging the atmosphere at the negotiations, said Kenneth Quinones, a former State Department intelligence expert on North Korea. Arrangements for the conference were under way before Pyongyang announced its intention to resume talks, according to USA Today (Barbara Slavin, USA Today, July 15). North Korean leaders also told the visiting European Parliament delegation that Pyongyang plans to apply to the World Trade Organization for observer status, Reuters reported. “North Korea says it has been in contact with the WTO secretariat about observer status,” said Glyn Ford, a British lawmaker. “Iraq also applied, so if one horse can get through the door, maybe two can” (Anna Fifield, Financial Times, July 15). Back to top       EU to Offer Iran Alternate Nuclear Fuel Supply France, Germany and the United Kingdom are likely to offer Iran assistance in acquiring nuclear fuel, thereby reducing its dependency on fuel imports from Russia, the Financial Times reported yesterday (see GSN, July 14). European countries themselves could be part of that supply network, the Times reported. For its part, however, Tehran has maintained that it wants to keep at least a small-scale uranium enrichment program. “We would be able to change our position towards their nucðlear civil program. It would be in our interests to make that safe and economically viable,” said one European diplomat. However, no such deal has yet been offered, said the diplomat. A detailed offer from the EU, originally promised by the end of July, is now unlikely to come before Iranian president-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad forms his new government in August, since speculation has begun that he could make changes in Iran’s nuclear negotiating team, according to the Times Russian nuclear energy agency head Alexander Rumyantsev, meanwhile, said yesterday that Moscow was “comfortable” with the idea of other parties supplying nuclear technology and fuel to Iran. Russia is assisting Iran with construction of a nuclear power reactor in Bushehr. “The Iranian market is so big in terms of demand,” said Rumyantsev. “That means France should also take part, the UK, Korea, Japan — all those who know how to build nuclear power stations” (Financial Times, July 14). Back to top

Drug Firms Say U.S. Slow to Buy WMD Countermeasures Drug company officials told a U.S. House of Representatives committee yesterday that the federal government was not moving fast enough under the Project BioShield law to stockpile WMD countermeasures, Reuters reported (see GSN, July 14). BioShield, passed in 2004, provides $5.6 billion over a 10-year period for countermeasure contracts, Reuters reported. “It's not being implemented the way it had been written,” Hollis-Eden Pharmaceuticals’ Chief Executive Officer Richard Hollis told the House Government Reform Committee yesterday. “Companies such as ours were supposed to be getting advance contracts.” He said delays by the Health and Human Services Department have caused his company, which is working on a radiation countermeasure, to lose $600 million. “We need not only a better BioShield but also a system that can deliver the best possible public response to emergencies,” said Representative Henry Waxman (D-Calif.). “The United States is unprepared for a flu pandemic which could claim as many as 500,000 American lives. We have not purchased the antiviral medications we need.” “Only a handful of states have the capacity to deliver essential medications and vaccines. There is no point having a new anthrax vaccine or nerve gas antidote if the people whose lives are at risk cannot get treatment in time,” Waxman added. However, Bush administration officials defended their efforts to procure countermeasures. Stewart Simonson, assistant secretary for public health emergency preparedness at the health department, said his agency has been working with a “genuine sense of urgency.” “No matter how hard we try, some steps in the process cannot be rushed,” he said. “I know it doesn't always seem satisfactory to the industry.” John Vitko, director of biological countermeasures at the Homeland Security Department, said preparedness has increased dramatically since the 2001 anthrax attacks. He said smallpox and anthrax vaccines have been stockpiled with plans to add additional countermeasures in the works. “We are substantially better prepared than we were in October of '01,” Simonson said. Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) plan to introduce BioShield II legislation to fill gaps in the 2004 BioShield law, Reuters reported (Maggie Fox, Reuters, July 14) Back to top

Cause of Umatilla Fires Remains Unknown Destruction of rockets containing VX nerve agent that sparked fires at Umatilla Chemical Weapons Depot in Oregon will continue despite an Army investigation’s inability to determine the cause of fires, the East Oregonian reported Wednesday (see GSN, July 11). The investigation did trace the fires, which resulted from the ignition of propellant when the rockets were being cut for incineration, back to a lot of rockets manufactured in October 1962, according to the Oregonian. Oregon’s Environmental Quality Department is allowing destruction of the suspect rockets to resume while the Army’s investigation continues. The department believes the Army has taken steps to reduce the chance of fires and control them if they do occur. Resumption of activity at the facility follows successful tests of the Deactivation Furnace System, the device that destroys the rockets. Samples from the tests are undergoing further analysis by the Environmental Quality Department before the facility can operate at 100 percent capacity, the Oregonian reported.  Until the report is reviewed, Umatilla can only destroy 19 rockets per hour, said administrator of the department’s chemical demilitarization program Dennis Murphy. Destruction of the rockets from the 1962 lot is expected to be delayed until the completion of the Army’s investigation. “While I’m pleased we’ve completed this important milestone, of greater significance is the tremendous pride our depot workforce has for the safe manner in which they have emptied seven storage igloos, destroyed more than 23 percent of the GB rockets, destroyed more than 100 tons of GB agent, and are reducing public risk from storing these weapons,” said Army project manager Don Barclay. Resumption of activity at Umatilla came as Depot Commander Lt. Col. David Holliday gave up control of the facility yesterday. “As I leave, I’m very pleased with what the employees have accomplished in the storage and disposal of chemical weapons,” Holliday said. “I’m also grateful for the community’s continuing support. Together, we can be proud of what we have achieved.” Holliday will be replaced by Lt. Col. Donna Rutten (Hal McCune, East Oregonian, July 13).   Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

© Copyright 2008 by National Journal Group, Inc. The material in this section is produced independently for NTI by National Journal Group, Inc. Any reproduction or retransmission, in whole or in part, is a violation of federal law and is strictly prohibited without the consent of the National Journal Group, Inc. All rights reserved.